Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2014 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 509 - AT - Service TaxDenial of refund claim - Notification No. 17/2009-ST. - relationship between the port services and royalty charges - Bar of limitation - CHA Services - Held that:- The refund application had been filed on 26/6/12 but if the limitation period of one year is counted from the date of ‘let export’ order, which is the relevant date in terms of Clause 2 (f) of the Notification, the refund claims for this amount has obviously been filed after the expiry of one year and, therefore, the rejection of the refund claim of Rs. 8,890/- is upheld. When the department has accepted service tax on these amounts under port services, at the time of considering refund of the service tax paid on port services to the service recipient, the Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities cannot seek to reopen the assessment of service tax at the end of the service provider. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 1,33,351/- of service tax on the port services on the ground that there is no relationship between the port service and royalty charges, is not correct. Though the invoices of the storage and warehousing service provider do not mention the shipping bill number, the storage and warehousing charges has been charged by the CHA from the appellant and the CHA in the invoices issued by him to the appellant has given complete details of the shipping bill. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the invoices issued by the storage service provider cannot be linked to the shipping bills under which the goods had been exported. While the bank realisation certificate does not mention the shipping bill number, it does mention the invoice number and date and the shipping bills filed by the appellant do mention the export invoice number. Thus, the bank realisation certificate can be linked to the shipping bills under which the exports had been made. Therefore, rejection of refund claim of Rs. 92,125/- on the ground mention in the impugned order is not correct - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|